BRIDGEPORT — The state Supreme Court has a message for political operatives, not just in Connecticut’s largest city but statewide, who get too closely involved in the absentee ballot process: Don’t.

Nearly two months after upholding Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis’ ruling to order a rare second Democratic primary do-over in the 133rd City Council District, the justices Monday released their detailed 26-page decision.

That document clarified guidelines for handling absentee ballots — votes cast by mail — and concluded rules were broken and things got sloppy last year in a competitive primary contest between the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee’s chosen candidates and a pair of self-proclaimed outsiders.

“Residents of the city of Bridgeport are entitled to honest elections and I hope this decision leads to that,” said lawyer Peter Finch, the son of former Mayor Bill Finch, who argued in support of Judge Bellis’ ruling before the Supreme Court for council candidates Bob Keeley and Anne Pappas Phillips.

But the ramifications of the court’s decision beyond the immediate 133rd District race were unclear. Gabe Rosenberg, spokesman for Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, said that office’s attorneys were still pouring over the legal document.

John Bohannon, a lawyer for the city, complained “the (absentee ballot) law should be plain on its face so that people can follow it.” Bohannon said “the Supreme Court dug deep to rationalize its interpretation of the law.”

Absentee ballots are meant for individuals unable for health or religious reasons or because they are away to make it to the polls. But campaigns can be won or lost through elaborate absentee ballot operations to supplement in-person votes cast at the polls.

The justices’ detailed decision made it clear that they believe “a court should be very cautious before exercising its power to vacate the results of an election” and that Bellis in Bridgeport had good reasons to do so in the 133rd District.

Among those reasons: Longtime Democratic Town Chairman Mario Testa, recently elected to another two year term, and his preferred council candidate, Michael DeFilippo, who bartends at Testa’s restaurant, got too personally involved in the collection of absentee ballots in the 133rd District battle.

That has proven a costly mistake. Bridgeport’s Democratic Town Committee has spent $12,367 on legal bills defending itself in the ongoing primary mess. And the city racked up $43,786 on legal fees in the case, records show.

DeFilippo and running-mate Councilwoman Jeanette Herron have been competing with fellow Democrats Keeley and Pappas Phillips for two council seats representing the North End. The quartet’s first primary last September concluded with DeFilippo in first place, and Herron squeaking out a second place win over Keeley after an absentee ballot appeared during a recount.

Subsequently Bellis ordered a new primary for Nov. 14. Keeley and Pappas Phillips again lost and complained of voting irregularities.

2nd do-over

It later came out in court before Bellis that Testa requested a police officer to pick up absentee ballots. That officer — Paul Nikola — then spent Nov. 13 and 14 driving around Bridgeport to addresses supplied by DeFilippo, picking up, in some cases, multiple ballots from a single person and, in one case, retrieving one from a mailbox.

So Bellis ordered the second primary do-over that landed before the Supreme Court. That primary is scheduled for April 10.

The Supreme Court’s decision concluded “it is an absentee voter himself or herself, and not a third party, who must appoint or select a designee ... to return his or her absentee ballot on the voter’s behalf.” That designee could be a cop, a family member or caregiver, but not a designee ordered up by Testa and DeFilippo.

The justices also took a deep dive into state political history, going back to 1974, and concluded that “partisan individuals are required to distance themselves from absentee voters when those voters are in the process of ... returning (ballots) to the town clerk for submission.”

Bohannon on Monday countered that state statutes do not require the absentee voter be the one to arrange for a police officer pickup, and there is nothing in statute preventing candidates or campaigns from obtaining that police assistance.

The Supreme Court also outlined its support for Bellis’ concerns about 12 absentee ballots retrieved from the City Hall mail room with no post marks. According to the justices’ decision, the mail room supervisor claimed he had brought the ballots straight from the post office to City Hall.

“This was shown, however, to be untrue,” wrote the justices Monday. Instead, they said, the supervisor made three stops to pick up mail at the city’s fire, emergency operations and health departments, leaving the mail bin unattended in an unlocked car.

Bellis, the justices wrote, correctly concluded that “the evidence established a lack of security with respect to the absentee ballots” and “increased the likelihood that the ballots lacking postmarks originated from somewhere other than the post office.”

The U.S. Postal Service recently issued a statement reversing a decades-old practice of allowing city of Bridgeport employees to pick up mail including absentee ballots from the local post office.

Following a hearing Monday afternoon, Judge Bellis directed the postal service to deliver absentee ballots to the city’s town clerk office.

Herron said that neither she nor DeFilippo have relied on absentee ballots: “Each and every election, 133rd voters came out. they spoke out twice. We won on the machines twice,” she said.